The range bubbles are one way distance. To verify this look at the one surrounding Denver. Colorado is about 380 miles across, and the diameter of that bubble is slightly larger, so they have about a 200 mile radius. The advertized range for the two Tesla S models are 230 & 300 miles, so neither can drive from a charging station to the edge of a bubble and back.

The range bubbles are one way distance. To verify this look at the one surrounding Denver. Colorado is about 380 miles across, and the diameter of that bubble is slightly larger, so they have about a 200 mile radius. The advertized range for the two Tesla S models are 230 & 300 miles, so neither can drive from a charging station to the edge of a bubble and back.

I though this issue was solved years ago with... and I'm not joking... towing a gas/diesel generator.

Put a hitch on the Telsa and tow a gas generator with fuel to extend your range. When you're using the car locally or once you reach your destination you unhitch and park the generator. There was even a prototype that looked like a tiny trailer.

I think the idea is that you're supposed to charge overnight at 115V or 230V in Vegas.

That's fine when the edge of the circle is your destination. But the fact that these are one way circles makes the map very deceptive. For example, take a look at the Fall 2013 map. It would seem that Toronto to NYC is a feasible trip, but it isn't, at least not by supercharger.

I think the idea is that you're supposed to charge overnight at 115V or 230V in Vegas.

That's fine when the edge of the circle is your destination. But the fact that these are one way circles makes the map very deceptive. For example, take a look at the Fall 2013 map. It would seem that Toronto to NYC is a feasible trip, but it isn't, at least not by supercharger.

According to marketing, if you leave Toronto in the Fall of 2013 and drive slow enough that you hit new stations coming online in early 2014... then you're OK.:)

Very interesting, but most people would still have to charge at home, and plan routes very carefully, even at the end of the timeline.

This is really an around town roadster, maybe a daily driver, but not something most people will want to set off on a road trip in.By the time Tesla gets these built, the industry will have moved on to Fuel Cell technology [washingtontimes.com]. Tesla is a stopgap measure at best.

You're talking lithium cell rechargeable batteries, which aren't exactly cheap. Just look at 6-cell laptop batteries, now multiply by a couple hundred, that's pretty pricey. That combined with production costs is a pretty penny, why the premium is usually $20-30K over a comparible petro-fueled car.

Note, that they've just _reduced_ the amount of catalyst, not eliminated it completely. Fuel cell cars are not possible in any large quantity - there's not enough platinum for that. Also, they STILL have the problem with catalyst poisoning - it's happening even faster than Li-Ion battery degradation (good news is that you can reuse platinum cheaply).

And on top of it, hydrogen is mostly produced from methane. And it's more energetically favorable to simply burn methane in a regular combustion engine.

Interesting. It seems like they're solving the range problem, but not necessarily the convenience problem. There's about 20 gas stations within 5 miles of where I live, but there won't even be 1 of these supercharger stations. That's not really a problem being at home, but I think it's probably going to be a problem for some people. Not to mention, with 4 to 10 stalls and the charge time, there's a good chance that people are going to be stuck waiting once they get a lot more of these on the road like I hop

My point is that I don't know if Tesla will be stepping it up quickly enough. They're expecting to build 20k Model S's in the next yer - even assuming they don't ramp up production further at all, which is highly unlikely given their track record, that's about 60k of them on the road by the end of that map's timeline, and most of those will be concentrated in the major metro areas instead of spread across the country fairly evenly like these stations. I have no doubt that the stations in Montana are likely

No. In planned economies there are lines for toilet paper. In "unplanned" (ie free markets) amazing things get done. Come Thanksgiving stores make certain that they have ordered enough turkeys, take them out of the freezer (most are frozen) a few days early and when people come to the store voila, defrosted turkeys.

Very useful link. It isn't obvious at first glance, but you can click at the bottom of the map to see the build-out timeline. I wonder what they're thinking targeting that route across the northern plains for Winter. I don't imagine there being too many road-trippers through there when it's brutally cold and subject to blizzards.

I wonder if their long-term plan includes franchising the stations. A lot of travel centers would kill to have the Tesla demographic hanging around with nothing to do for half a

That's what I've been thinking. I've heard that Harris Ranch is quite pleased with the Superchargers there. It's one of the busiest ones and they've had to expand it, probably in part due to people staying longer than their charging time to get a good steak.

The ones I have been to in Gilroy and Folsom are at malls, though a lot of shops are closed in the Gilroy outlet mall there are still a number of places to eat within easy walking distance.

First, 100 fast chargers does not a nationwide blanket make.Second, these things are extremely expensive to install (especially if they're not immediately next to major power lines). We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars.Third, fast charges are very inefficient by comparison to level 2 chargers-- there's a lot of waste energy.Fourth, fast chargers are most likely to be used midday when electricity is at its costliest.

So, they're expensive to install, wastes electricity, and are most likely to be us

It would be more credible to claim that the ONLY company that tried is bankrupt. You can almost always find a pioneering company that failed.Perhaps fuel cells are the future or maybe someone will invent the Shipstone or Mr Fusion, but battery swap, I believe, can be viable and profitable.Better Place was too far ahead of the curve or was focusing on the wrong niche.

You're right that they're more efficient than combustion engines, but so are bicycles. The point is that fast charges are not the future-- they're a dead end to a technology.

Battery swapping, on the other hand, is the most cost efficient, environmentally friendly, and quickest form of refueling an battery EV.

I think chargers are a pretty reasonable solution to a relatively rare problem: how to recharge your car when you want to drive more than a couple of hundred miles at a stretch.

What's more, the batteries weigh quite a bit (http://www.roperld.com/science/TeslaModelS.htm) 1200lbs for the S. Anyone can plug a car in. 1200lbs of battery would be a bit rough to handle. Even 1/10th that would be too much to deal with.

Well, when you consider that the Tesla engine isn't 100% efficient, that the charging process isn't 100% efficient, and the charging station is probably being powered by a 40 year old coal powered power station which is actually less efficient than an internal combustion engine in the first place, not to mention substantially dirtier(yes even coal power can be more efficient than your car, but only if you have a new plant and most places don't).

and the charging station is probably being powered by a 40 year old coal powered power station which is actually less efficient than an internal combustion engine in the first place,

Funny, I was just reading this a little while ago:

"âoeAt the time of the latest record, wind generation accounted for 22 percent of the power demand of 34,318 MWâ¦Wind farms expanded rapidly in Texas until 2009 when production began to overwhelm the existing transmission capacityâ¦Texas is building more

30% is max efficiency, which usually occurs at around 75% output power. You don't use anywhere near that much power cruising (with the possible exceptions of Montana and the Autobahn). Average efficiency in driving is 14-26% according to this: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml [fueleconomy.gov] That's a frustratingly wide range, but you get the idea. IIRC coal plants are about 40%. Combined cycle natural gas powered plants are approaching 60%.

And a solar thermal heat engine running a turbine with 800 degree pressurized steam can get close to 60% efficient. 60% efficient of the nigh inexhaustible power of the solar systems most powerful thermonuclear furnace.

Here [gm-volt.com] is a pretty neat article on how the Chevy Volt uses its battery to modulate energy production from its internal combustion engine, allowing it to run nearer its optimal range more of the time. Note it is right in its sweet spot at 72 mph. (That said the car gets 'only' 40 mpg on the highway on gas, even though it can bypass the electrical drivetrain on the highway. It does weigh 700 lb more than a Prius so maybe the problem is the weight of the batteries which aren't very useful on long trips, but c

Never, ever running the gasoline engine in a Volt would be a seriously detrimental thing, if for no other reason than the facts that gasoline gets a bit funky as it ages and engines are made to be run. Bad things happen to them during long periods of disuse if not properly prepared.

40 miles a day in a Volt and never buy gas again? Good luck a few years from now when you need to go 41 miles.

Actually, you are a bit off, Cost of install depends on size of install. 4 station charger will cost more than a 1 or 2 station. The power draw is easy enough to get around as they are installed in commercial districts with more than enough power available. Most of them are being installed in conjunction with Solar panels anyways. Eventually these will be refueling stations at a cost to all electric cars so the costs to build them will be fully recouped.

Interesting idea with solar powered recharge stations... you could put automated recharge stations in the middle of nowhere where it's inconvenient to ship gas to, like long stretches of empty highway in the American Southwest. Of course, it will be a while before solar can keep up with the demand of anything more than a very low volume station but the potential is there.

Second, these things are extremely expensive to install (especially if they're not immediately next to major power lines). We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I'm guessing that you've never had to build a gasoline station. Environmental assessments. Underground excavation. Costly double-walled tanks and plumbing. Inspections. Insurance in case you contaminate the local soil or water with spilled fuel. And it's not like you get a pipeline direct to the station--every gallon you sell has to be trucked in.

The goal is to put a solar canopy over them to help power the station. Probably once the onsite batteries are charged, they'd even be able to make money on some of the lesser used routes. It's not so bad when you're wasting solar panel since it's going to waste anyways.

Battery swapping may seem like a common sense idea, but the technology in batteries isn't there that we can have a small enough batter package that can be robust enough to be swapped.

Actually the fast chargers should be more efficient. They're basically pumping DC directly into the battery, bypassing the car's built-in charging circuit. They're fed directly with 480V 3-phase power from a high voltage source. The two that I have seen are right next to a big HV power transformer. The Supercharger units themselves are about half the size of a refrigerator witha large fan on the side.for cooling. Lithium Ion batteries are typically quite efficient when charging as well.

Electric cars have long been a chicken or egg problem. We would have gladly rented a Tesla model S for our trip to New Orleans from Dallas last weekend (Elon, lend me a car when we can do this and we'll document the trip), but A) you can't readily rent a Tesla and b) there are no charging stations yet.

I think it's interesting that they're building out a "free forever" stations, and carpeting the nation with them. They probably represent a fixed cost, as you can only charge so many cars per day, and eventually competing stations will pop up along the most popular routes. Electricity really isn't that expensive.

I was thinking about how US automakers might try and sue Tesla in federal court over providing "fuel" for the cars, but I wonder if the "free forever" is due in part to the fact that it's much more difficult to sue a company for anti-competitive practices if there's no money changing hands in the fueling process.

They are NOT going to continue the "free forever" model indefinitely. Right now it's a promotion and at some point in future new Teslas (and other car makes if they license Tesla technology) are going to pay for charging.

Maybe where you live. I live in California, where peak energy rates hit.49 $/kWh, filliing up a 60 kWh or 85 kWh battery will cost up to $30 or $42.50, respectively. About the same as a tank of gas.

This will become very, very expensive. They can halve the costs installing large scale solar, but you're still going to get into a very expensive obligation that will probably result in the company going bankrupt over the long run.

Commercial and residential rates are billed wildly different. Second, energy rates vary wildly. Depending on the region, like Texas or Tennessee, energy rates are closer to $0.06/kwh if you shop around. Obviously the more you buy, the more you save.

>Commercial and residential rates are billed wildly different. Second, energy rates vary wildly. Depending on the region, like Texas or Tennessee, energy rates are closer to $0.06/kwh if you shop around. Obviously the more you buy, the more you save.

Peak power costs (Tier 5) for residential is also about 55c/kWh (http://www.pge.com/tariffs/ResTOUCurrent.xls). That's why I put solar on my house. The LEC of solar is about half peak power rates - so you install just enough solar capacity to drop you back do

While 30 minutes is great compared to waiting several hours, they need to really bring that recharge time down by a factor of 5 or more. Being able to stop for a recharge in many places is good, but for longer trips (which mentioning coast-to-coast travel seems to be pointing towards) waiting for half an hour every charging cycle will start to add up on your travel time.

I feel like this is trying to force the current gas station paradigm (refuel, adding 300-500 miles of range in 5-10 minutes) onto EVs, when that paradigm doesn't really fit well.

Based on a little Googling, Tesla's Superchargers can apparently charge 50% of an 85 kwh battery in about 30 minutes. Not bad (a bit over twice the charge rate of DC fast charging on a Leaf), but based on the EPA estimated range of 265 miles, that gives you about 130 miles of range. So every 130 miles, you stop for 30 minutes - more if all Superchargers at a station are in use. While I'm all for taking frequent breaks on long trips, this is a lot more than the usual 10 minutes every few hundred miles.

To match gas station refuel times, the power requirements get ridiculous pretty fast. Superchargers put out 120 kw according to Tesla. Let's say we have a hypothetical battery that can take a full 85-kwh charge (265 miles) in 5 minutes like a gas pump. That's 12 times faster than the Supercharger rate of half-capacity in 30 minutes, or 1.44 MW per car! By way of comparison, most (many?) homes in the US have 240-volt, 100-amp service, or 24 kw maximum available power. 1.44 MW is equivalent to 60 homes all maxed out and about to trip breakers! If a typical charging station will service a similar number of cars as a gas station, multiply that by maybe 10 - or 600 maxed out homes. For one refueling station. Insanity. It gets even worse if you want more than 265 miles of range in 5 minutes.

The bottom line is that even if battery technology gets there, how will the grid handle such quick charging? I see that being the bigger obstacle to EV road trips as convenient as gas-powered trips are now.

The easier solution is to shift the paradigm - how we think about and use our vehicles. Everyone could have an EV for commuting and regular driving within its nominal range. You charge at night or any other time when you're not using the car anyway - NOT when you are on a trip and just want to keep going (but can't, until you wait to recharge). If/when you need to take a long road trip, you take a gas-powered car. Either an extra car in your household, a rental, borrowed from someone you know. Whatever. Or if you're not hauling a bunch of stuff, maybe it makes more sense to fly.

As a current EV owner (Nissan Leaf), I've already made the switch in paradigm - and I love it. I'm saving tons of money on fuel costs, driving my Leaf over 16k miles per year. Pretty much every trip within its range will use that car, because it's cheaper and fun to drive. Going to Vegas (from SoCal)? We use the other car. Or any longer trip. Most multi-driver households have multiple cars, so road trips shouldn't really be an issue. I think this kind of strategy makes way more sense than seriously increasing travel time (waiting to charge) or the failed battery swap idea.

One of the biggest criticisms that surfaces with EVs is that long road trip "problem". I find it amusing because most Americans drive way under even the base model's maximum range. Yes, we'll need a paradigm change - use an EV for 99% of your commuting and take a gas vehicle for the 1% remaining. Those that need long range (work, distance from city, whatever) can keep their gas vehicles, they're not a significant proportion of the population.

You're forgetting that unlike regular cars most EVs are charged at home at leisurely speeds. You only need to use superchargers when you do long road trips. Besides, your calculations are a bit off. If we assume that 85kW*h give you 200 miles of range (somewhat lower than Tesla's specs) then you need 340kW to charge battery in 15 minutes. Driving 200 miles takes about 3.5 hours at typical highway conditions, so you're looking for a break of about 20 minutes every 4 hours - that's not terribly different from

The easier solution is to shift the paradigm - how we think about and use our vehicles.

This part is right.

If/when you need to take a long road trip, you take a gas-powered car. Either an extra car in your household, a rental, borrowed from someone you know. Whatever.

And this part is totally wrong. The clean solution is to take a page from Europe, make your train network actually useful, and let trains haul you AND your car from one city to another. You drive the station, park your car ONTO the train (as well as charge it if you like), then go sit comfortably in the passenger cart of the same train, let it take you to the destination city, and then get on your car and drive away.

The train ticket may sound expensive, but if you account for the fact you saved fuel/electricity cost for the car, and you can comfortably rest or sleep overnight for the entire trip, it is a bargain.

You have such a big problem with long road trips in the US because your train network sucks.

If other car makers could license the charging connector and rate from Tesla through them or through a standards body the EV market could take off once all of these charging stations are built. Only issue then is waiting half an hour for 66% charge and waiting for others to finish charging.

If they only charge Tesla vehicles, that would be like building gas stations that only sell proprietary fuel for Ford vehicles. Maybe sell the juice cheaper to Tesla owners but they need to provide high current plugs for all of the major electric vehicles.

Cross-country travel is still gong to be a hard sell, tho. They're talking about 30 minutes to 50% charge. So call it an hour to 90% and 1.5 hours to 100%. And I assume they're talking about the small Tesla pack to get the best numbers. And non-Tesla vehicles will have to be charged at a more conservative rate so they're going to have people hanging around for an hour or two charging their vehicles. That's a lot of time to kill.

If they only charge Tesla vehicles, that would be like building gas stations that only sell proprietary fuel for Ford vehicles.

That is something I'm not understanding either. Are those Superchargers Tesla only?
If the answer is yes, it really doesn't make any sense to me for two reasons:

1)Although the media is focus exclusively on them, Tesla is not the only EV manufacturer. Making a charger that ignores the most of the market sounds like lost business opportunity. There are already sub 30k EVs (Nissan LEAF being my favorite). They are not as good as the Model S, but they also cost half. There are also hybrids, which in my opinio

If they only charge Tesla vehicles, that would be like building gas stations that only sell proprietary fuel for Ford vehicles. Maybe sell the juice cheaper to Tesla owners but they need to provide high current plugs for all of the major electric vehicles.

Cross-country travel is still gong to be a hard sell, tho. They're talking about 30 minutes to 50% charge. So call it an hour to 90% and 1.5 hours to 100%. And I assume they're talking about the small Tesla pack to get the best numbers. And non-Tesla vehic

With a gas-powered car, you can drive to the next town or next state and fill up. Maybe even the next street if the gas station has backup generators. If the "gas" station relies on the same grid, you're up the creek in a really bad way that you aren't right now.

Big Oil has long gone out of its way to stifle any advances in automotive technologies which would depends on other sources of fuel than petrol. More than likely by now electric cars should be a defacto standard for urban driving. We are at least 20 yrs behind because of Big Oil. I wish it was a conspiracy theory, but its true and many people got either paid off and/or were silence all in the name of gasoline.

Every restaurant along a major highway should be looking at installing an electric vehicle charger. If I'm taking a trip in an electric car and getting hungry, you can bet I'll choose the stop that lets me charge the car at the same time.

Sure, the Tesla supercharger may be expensive to install due to the power requirements, but even a standard 220V charger would be enough to make me decide to eat there instead of somewhere else. Even if my trip doesn't require extra charging, having extra power in case I encounter something unexpected is a good thing.

I'm really looking forward to this. Last weekend I took my model S down to Big Sur to do some camping and used a bit more power than I anticipated while driving over dirt roads and due to a headwind driving back north. On my way back I had to stop for a bit in Monterey at a level 2 charger to add a few miles before I could reach the Gilroy supercharger. I ended up having to unplug a Volt who was taking up an EV only spot (and was apparently there for many hours according to a Leaf owner parked across from me).

Of course their announcement shows that this summer a supercharger will be installed in or near Monterey, which would have solved that problem, and there are more on the way along Highway 1.

In fact, it looks like they'll be building some near some of the other out-of-the-way places I like to travel around the state. It looks like at least one is going in along Highway 395 along the Eastern Sierra.

The fact that they are reducing charging time is another bonus. 200 miles in 30 minutes for "free" is awesome. I enjoy the superchargers. It's often nice to chat with other Tesla owners there. When I stopped in Gilroy to charge I had 8 miles left. The fellow who pulled in next to me was down to 2 miles, and like me he had taken his car over a bunch of dirt roads. A standard level 2 charger gives me around 15-20 miles of range per hour. At a Supercharger I can get 15-20 miles of charge in 3 minutes!

While charging I can go stretch my legs, get a meal, check email, surf the web or whatever so I don't consider the delay that big of an issue.

Out of all the times I've used a supercharger I have never had to wait and there are usually plenty of places nearby to eat or shop while charging, even during Memorial Day weekend.

The superchargers really make road trips possible with electric vehicles. Sure, it's not as fast as filling a gasoline car, but 30 minutes for 200 miles is not bad! I suspect that when Tesla comes out with their 3rd generation coupe it will charge even faster since it will be a smaller and lighter vehicle.

Tesla seems to be well ahead of anybody else out there in terms of EV technology. Their batteries have the highest energy density for the lowest cost as well as a very compact electric motor. They spent a lot of effort on battery safety as well. I don't think synchronous motors can compete with induction motors when it comes to power density and I'm sure the cost of induction motors is also lower since there are no rare-earth magnets involved. The 420HP/445ft-lb induction motor in my Tesla is the size of a watermelon.

The Tesla power connector design is also much better than the J1772 Frankenplug or the huge CHaDeMo connector. Both the J1772 frankenplug and the CHaDeMo connectors are the size of a softball vs the much smaller Tesla connector. They have a small J1772 adapter and I'm sure they'll come out with additional adapters in the future for the frankenplug if it becomes popular.

No, that is not Tesla's job. Tesla are fulfilling a very important part of getting the industry to take electric cars seriously by appealing to the car enthusiasts. This group represents a big barrier to green technology cars because they are traditionally seen as pokey, boring machines. Tesla are changing that perception and there are plenty of other companies who are now starting to produce cheaper electric vehicles. Tesla should keep doing what they are doing - challenging the dominance of the petrol driven sports car.

Spoken by someone who clearly has no idea what car enthusiasts think or how much influence they have on the industry. The Tesla model S goes from 0-60 in 4.4 seconds which puts it in the seriously quick category. Now, exactly what makes you think it's slow? Or are you just playing internets?

Or perhaps they could disrupt a profitable market, sell at an appreciable margin, and make lots of money before trying to build massive, Toyota-scale factories out of nothing?

This. Here in Norway the Tesla Model S is looking like a very compelling offer because they're getting all the tax breaks of electric vehicles and the taxes tend to be much higher on high end cars which means that here a $80k Model S Performance sells for about the same as a slightly upgraded Audi A6 that'd sell for $50k in the US. Or if you look at cars that'd be roughly even priced in the US like the $75k Audi A8 it sells for 90% more than the Tesla here. Yes, it's exploiting a tax structure that won't last but right now they're getting to sell a damn fine high performance car like it was the most environmental-friendly subcompact on the block.

They've confirmed that 1000+ people here are now on a waiting list in a country of 5 million people, that's the equivalent of 60k+ in the US. And that was before the 99/100 Consumer Reports score which was widely publicized. It's not petrol/diesel car volume but they're getting decent volume - it's not like you're one of ten people in the country who has one, they get real people who have experience with them - most people are very conservative and true to brand when it comes to car purchases - and they get to boot a charger network. All in all, I'd say this looks like wins all around for them. So far I think they've promised the EV perks will last out 2015, if they come to an end I expect a huge rush of Tesla Model S orders before that who are still waiting for the first round of kinks to be worked out first.

Car enthusiasts think every single one of the world's top selling cars are pokey boring machines and that doesn't matter the tiniest bit to anyone else. I can guarantee that most car enthusiasts would pan every car I've ever owned. No one gives a crap about the opinion of car enthusiasts. For that matter the primary issue that car enthusiasts have had with electric cars is that they're slow, which the Tesla still is(by car enthusiast standards anyway).

Are you high? The Model S is one of the fastest production sedans on the planet, and far and away the fastest you can jam five or seven people in.

Could electric cars have rooftop solar panels to slowly charge the batteries while the car sits in a parking lot all day? It's too small of a surface to charge them to capacity, but it might make enough of a difference to be worthwhile, especially in sunnier areas.

The efficiencies are too low and the cost is still too high. A rooftop solar panel was an (grossly overpriced) option on the Fisker Karma but would only generate enough power to keep the car cool on a hot day and power some electronics.

Even at 100% efficiency, the most that could be generated from a 1 meter square panel would be 1 kW.

Wait till you get to replace those batteries and discover the real costs:D

From what I've read about the Prius the battery life is exceeding expectations by a wide margin.

Most drivers have never faced a battery replacement, because they are easily managing 10 years (200K miles) and the batteries
have shown no sign of needing replacement [wikipedia.org].

Admittedly it costs around 2000 to 2500 bucks when you do need a replacement, although salvage yards will sell them
to you for around $500. A cottage industry has sprung up refurbing Prius batteries.

Considering a typical Honda Accord will have two full tune-ups and maybe three of them by the time it hits 200k miles, the cost of those tune-ups will set you back equal that cost of the battery replacement, if not more. Never mind the usual replacement of struts, brakes/brakepads, exhaust system, transmission, etc.

Nobody said they don't have to be replaced.Just that the vast majority of them are running much longer than expected.Only the first generation of Prius vehicles are reaching their 10 year life.

The Prius's use of the battery is fairly minimal -- most people wouldn't notice if the battery had lost 50% or more of its capacity. (The Prius gets its fuel efficiency from the Atkinson cycle engine, not from the electrics. The electrics are only there because the Atkinson engine has so little torque you'd never get the car moving without an electric "boost".)

If the battery was completely toast, you'd be stuck in a Prius, but even at 15-20% of the capacity, the car will drive just fine.

Because he never said that you imbecile, the very first line of his post is "battery life is exceeding expectations by a wide margin" and then he goes on to elaborate that even after 10 years most people still don't need a replacement.

Exactly it is like me going to a car dealership and buying the car and the gas for the life of it and paying interest on both up front. Then we add another 5K paid by someone else all for the luxury of having a low range inconvenient vehicle. I have nothing against electric vehicles but they are going to have to get hell of a lot more practical before I jump into one.

But if they don't tell you what they will do, then who will invest? Who will be ready to buy as soon as they hit the market? It's a pretty stupid advertising strategy to roll your product out the door and then start telling people about it.

I am sick and tired about all this "flying car in every garage" public relations dreck.

Can someone tell me why a readership that embraces every speculative technology suddenly gets downright angry about the very thought of an electric car? Or for that matter any mention of energy produced by any alternative means?

Because they're a dumb idea until we have a much better battery technology

Smartphones used to be a "dumb idea" until better battery technology came along. Certainly tablets were a dumb idea.

The Apple Newton was a dumb idea until better battery technology came along but I bet the same people who get whipped into a fury at every mention of an electric car were creaming themselves over the Apple Newton.

Because many of those 'alternative energy' technologies are scams

Did I mention that Texas is getting better than 22% of it's electricity from wind turbines? Do you know how much of Germany's electricity comes from solar? Germany is a lot more cloudy than the US.

Only in the US do you hear the "Alternative Energy is a Scam!!" routine. I wonder why.

Germany has so much solar because it has *insane* subsidies. It's moronic *not* to put money in solar in Germany, because (although this is changing), any excess power you produce *must* be bought by the power company at a very hefty multiple of the normal price. Germany is *not* the way we want to go here - in fact, the rush to solar and the Green's crusade against nuclear have created very significant instability in Germany' power grid. They are not far from the time that a large, dark front could crash the country.

Germany's subsidies are a lesson in how to create a really unsustainable ecosystem. It only works because Germany's industrial base is a world leader and makes enough to keep the socialist redistribution (barely) afloat. With its current balance of trade, I'm not sure that the US could even pull off German-style subsidies, and the Germans themselves are backing away from them very quickly as they begin to see the train wreck unfold.

BTW, fraud and abuse is rampant in the industry in general (I work in solar, and have worked int he oil industry - "green energy" really is thousands of times sleazier than oil & gas ever was) - in Spain, for instance (which also pays a premium for power delivered from solar plants), a large solar PV farm was caught using a bunch of generators to inject power into the grid at night - not only was this dirtier than a real power plant, they were getting many. many times more for that power since it was "green" because it came from a solar plant!

Right now they're Tesla only. However, Tesla also has a side business selling power trains to more traditional car companies, and they're probably likely to license access to the network to those cars as well once they've built it out some.

Back of the envelope calculation: [(10k miles per year) / (30 miles per gallon)] * (4 dollars per gallon) = 1.3k$ per year. Over ten years, 13k$. Tesla offers a pre-paid battery replacement (pay when you buy the car, get the new battery much later) for 12k$. So, if the battery lifetime is on the close order of ten years, then you're not far from the break-even point. If gas prices go up, or if you drive more, or if your gas mileage is worse, or if the battery replacement price comes down, then less than

I do not agree. Many great ideas have failed on their first attempt simply 'the time is not right'. It does not mean that it was a bad idea. Subsequent tries on the same idea, modifying a few points have managed to succeed and thrive. Being the first to do something is not always best.